Keeping low-level units relevant

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Keeping low-level units relevant

Tagged: 

This topic contains 103 replies, has 32 voices, and was last updated by  Asmodeus 4 years ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 61 through 90 (of 102 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #156595

    caxap
    Member

    2Teehon

    Imho, lowtiers ALREADY are viable even late game.
    Yes, Tier 4 could kill Tier1 unit with 1-2 strikes and tier1 units does low damage to tier4. BUT tier4 unit upkeep is 32 gold when tier1 unit upkeep is 4 gold.
    It means, that u could build and use 8 (EIGHT) tier 1 units for the same price as one tier4 unit. And, in most cases, 8 tier 1 units will kill tier4 (for example, 8 archers*3 shots * 1 damage = 24 damage MINIUM to tier 4 unit in 1 turn. It means, that 8 archers will kill most of the tier 4 in 2-3 turns).

    The difference is, that 1 tier 4 unit is most COMPACT, than 8 tier 1 units – it’s the reason to use them.

    #156608

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    To everyone:

    Guys, you somehow disregard the topic and continue the polemic about some things which don’t actually matter that much.<br>
    All I want is the possibility to make the units I like useful. I do not want t1 to become the only viable option. Quite the contrary – I want ALL units to be viable options and want to have an option, as a player, to base my strategy on all the units my race and class have (and not on the few effective ones). After all, it makes a lot of other units just placeholders, while in the action you see the same units over and over again. (And it’s a shame, since the game has so many!)

    Look, talking about polemics and things that actually don’t matter much – AoW 2 doesn’t belong here, neither with SM or without, because it’s a very different game.

    I’m playing AoW 3 from the start, and I’ve played it a lot. There are tons of options and tons of things to try, and my impression is that you can do basically everything provided you do it right.
    This includes low level units.

    The way this game is build, the actual strength of a unit is only one factor – sure you want to field real oomph and all, but that’s expensive to get; for the racials the 175 for the War Hall is a lot and the 300+ for the RT3 is a ton. It costs gold, it costs time to build, units likewise.

    When the game develops, it obviously doesn’t make sense to build every town to kingdom come; Racial T3 is expensive, and you can afford to produce that stuff only in a few locations; same thing with Class T3, T4 being a special case anyway. The heavyweights are definitely not enough – it’s better to specialize towns. You will have towns that have only, say, the class dwelling that crank out low class units. Others may have Shrine and Temple, producing T2 supports; yet others may have Barracks and the Shooting range (FOCUS CHAMBER) and crank out T1 Archers; if you play Warlord, you may use Mana to Raise Militias, so you will have a sizable number of T1 Irregulars.
    In the end, sure, 6 Manticores are a powerful stack – but how many of those will you be able to field? And how long will it take? How many of your towns will have all 3 Warlord Class buildings and the production capacity to crank them out in masses?
    So instead of 6 Manticores and one stack – maybe cranking out only 2 of those plus 4 T3s and 4 T2s and 8 T1s does a better job – you have 18 units instead of 6, and while the 6 Manticores are certainly a neat stack, fast, it’s more like a hurricane or a locust plague. Going with those 3 allows to expand and SECURE as well, thorough Scouting, blocking, whatever.

    All that said – sure SOME units are better than others, or so it may seem at least; but I’m QUITE sure, that the racial governance changes will give yet another boost to the less-loved creatures, and we’ll see a lot more different setups than now. If you get late-game improvements on T1s it WILL make even more sense to build some with SOME of your towns.

    All that said, the bottom line is, I see no reason for complaint here. None, actually.

    #156616

    vyolin
    Member

    I tip my hat to you, good sir, for your thorough analysis of the matter at hand. While I would still like to experience the repercussions of production spillover firsthand, I now opine that it is actually not needed to uphold variety in regular games.
    Exotic map settings and 200+ turns games notwithstanding.

    #156618

    Teehon
    Member

    Look, talking about polemics and things that actually don’t matter much – AoW 2 doesn’t belong here, neither with SM or without, because it’s a very different game.

    I’m playing AoW 3 from the start, and I’ve played it a lot. There are tons of options and tons of things to try, and my impression is that you can do basically everything provided you do it right.
    This includes low level units.

    The way this game is build, the actual strength of a unit is only one factor – sure you want to field real oomph and all, but that’s expensive to get; for the racials the 175 for the War Hall is a lot and the 300+ for the RT3 is a ton. It costs gold, it costs time to build, units likewise.

    When the game develops, it obviously doesn’t make sense to build every town to kingdom come; Racial T3 is expensive, and you can afford to produce that stuff only in a few locations; same thing with Class T3, T4 being a special case anyway. The heavyweights are definitely not enough – it’s better to specialize towns. You will have towns that have only, say, the class dwelling that crank out low class units. Others may have Shrine and Temple, producing T2 supports; yet others may have Barracks and the Shooting range (FOCUS CHAMBER) and crank out T1 Archers; if you play Warlord, you may use Mana to Raise Militias, so you will have a sizable number of T1 Irregulars.
    In the end, sure, 6 Manticores are a powerful stack – but how many of those will you be able to field? And how long will it take? How many of your towns will have all 3 Warlord Class buildings and the production capacity to crank them out in masses?
    So instead of 6 Manticores and one stack – maybe cranking out only 2 of those plus 4 T3s and 4 T2s and 8 T1s does a better job – you have 18 units instead of 6, and while the 6 Manticores are certainly a neat stack, fast, it’s more like a hurricane or a locust plague. Going with those 3 allows to expand and SECURE as well, thorough Scouting, blocking, whatever.

    All that said – sure SOME units are better than others, or so it may seem at least; but I’m QUITE sure, that the racial governance changes will give yet another boost to the less-loved creatures, and we’ll see a lot more different setups than now. If you get late-game improvements on T1s it WILL make even more sense to build some with SOME of your towns.

    All that said, the bottom line is, I see no reason for complaint here. None, actually.

    In theory, what you say sounds about right.
    But then again, in practice the situation is different. At least in almost every game I play. No matter what my initial strategy was, I end up using optimal units. or lose..

    If you get late-game improvements on T1s it WILL make even more sense to build some with SOME of your towns.

    Have you actually read my proposition in my first post? late-game improvements for the T1 is exactly what I proposed.

    #156633

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Well, obviously you’ll get them via racial governance.

    #156651

    Astraflame
    Member

    T1 is not a problem, the problem are bad T1 units that so easily are made obsolete by superior and still cheap enough T2 units.
    Elven infantry, who builds them over Elven archer or berserker/ crusader.

    #156652

    Astraflame
    Member

    2Teehon

    Imho, lowtiers ALREADY are viable even late game.<br>
    Yes, Tier 4 could kill Tier1 unit with 1-2 strikes and tier1 units does low damage to tier4. BUT tier4 unit upkeep is 32 gold when tier1 unit upkeep is 4 gold.<br>
    It means, that u could build and use 8 (EIGHT) tier 1 units for the same price as one tier4 unit. And, in most cases, 8 tier 1 units will kill tier4 (for example, 8 archers*3 shots * 1 damage = 24 damage MINIUM to tier 4 unit in 1 turn. It means, that 8 archers will kill most of the tier 4 in 2-3 turns).

    The difference is, that 1 tier 4 unit is most COMPACT, than 8 tier 1 units – it’s the reason to use them.

    Archers are viable and pikes, the best units like focus chamber hunters are viable for the entire game, the worst are not viable for long
    Dwarf and orc infantry are exceptions and can be useful come the mid game. The power of T3-4 units is how they concentrate it.
    In this regard low tiers can never keep up and sooner or later becomes obsolete unless they counter a higher unit.

    #156655

    UltraDD
    Member

    Elven infantry isn’t that bad :P. I remember their swordsman tanking warlord units on a gate’s door for 3 turns. Thats very cost effective!

    #156662

    Astraflame
    Member

    The mother of all T1 related problems is, people like the aesthetics of weak T1 units and likes to keep building them for this reason.
    Since many of them are useless production after a certain point, then the players become frustrated.
    In this regard the age of wonders game will always suffer, the only solution is probably spill- over production or simultaneous city production

    #156667

    Astraflame
    Member

    Elven infantry isn’t that bad :P . I remember
    their swordsman tanking warlord units on a gate’s door for 3 turns. Thats very cost effective!

    You can do certain things even to a bad unit, level him, buff him and Elven infantry is ok.
    Then again the point is when another unit does everything better , then there is no point in Elven Infantry, wasted production.
    If one only intends building one or two Elven Infantry in the begining, then there is no problem.
    On the other hand if one likes this unit to stay relevant for longer, it wont work because it is crap weak and economy can sustain
    higher quality unit.

    Heroes of might and magic do not suffer from the problem, because crap units can be concentrated and stacked,
    Strong in high numbers, 4k skeletons can destroy 20 golden dragons etc. If you have this mentality age with its replacing system
    will always be frustrating, until the day when low quality crap troops can produce faster than the high quality, then it can not be another way.

    #156669

    nanogasm
    Member

    Looking forward to seeing the changes to make lower tiers a bit more useful.

    I don’t think it’s the t1 units themselves that are the problem, but the systems that work around them.

    The current flaw with AoW grand strategy I find currently, at least in single player, is that you don’t need a vast empire to win. You only need a handful of cities to support a couple of powerful parties. You simply penetrate deep undefended cities and begin a rinse/repeat razing process. Doing so amasses gold and mana which replaces your small empires ability to generate income to resupply this process. Since you only need a couple of bad ass parties, and party size is finite, then low tiers become irrelevant because you need to fill the spots with power.

    I sometimes think the core problem is two fold:
    – AI strategy – it over expands and leaves itself poorly defended to this strategy.
    – Razing system should be tweaked. It is too fast and too lucrative. I found the game challenging when I would keep the cities I took, and the game easy when I used the razing system.

    #156672

    thabob79
    Member

    IMHO to help the low tier unit make excess production carry to the next item in the queue, you will be able to produce lower unit faster, making them more useful

    #156681

    Althea
    Member

    I agree with some posters above, T1 are still useful even at late game.

    As already explained in great detail by JJ. I’ll also add my input about T1 in late game.

    Archdruid and sorcerer, especially AD need to produce many pikemen as well as hunter (which is T1) to battle warlord at late game when those manticore are seemingly infinite in numbers.

    Of course they can 1 turn produce T3, but not all cities will be able to do that, reasonably at most less than 10% of the total number of cities in a player empire will be able to 1 turn T3.

    The problem is that T3 is butchered as easily as pikemen (which is T1) against manticore, so why waste resource on a unit that is as good as T1, it’s better to produce that T1 pikemen and archer.

    In these case, in term of battle prowess T1 beat T3, the only good thing T3 have is some of them is flying, so they have mobility advantage, but arch druid can make even all his T1 (including pikemen) float, which is almost of no different in strategic map than flying.

    Sorcerer also will do the same in this case.

    You may say that not everytime you meet a warlord, but that argument is invalid because most people play FFA game, those one of those multiple random opponents will often be a warlord.

    Pikemen and Archer are still useful even if your game already reach turn 200 or 300+. It just depends on the class.

    There is a point when you can have 10+ cities 1 turn producing T3, but at that point, you have already won the game anyway, so why bother, at this point it doesn’t matter which units you produce, because you already won.

    The only T1 which is close to useless is T1 infantry.

    Then come Theocrat.

    Theocrat heavily make use of T1 infantry late game, perhaps the only class to do so. Perhaps you’re quite forgetting that shrine of smiting damage bonus is boosted by devout units, the shrine doesn’t care whether it’s T1 or T3, as long as it is a devout unit.

    This is when that T1 infantry become important. Theocrat main army usually doesn’t consist any T1 infantry, unless the theocrat is low on gold and gold per turn. But his army that defend important cities and his splinter army can heavily make use of T1 infantry. In defence of a city, two shrines supported by several T1 infantry and martyr (yes martyr, i’m not joking) and some T2 support will be extremely hard to breach, unless against dreadnought who bring several juggernaut, but if you play theocrat right this juggernaut should be intercepted by your main army, therefore at best those that can siege your city are just a bunch of golems/canons/flame tanks which will get one shoted by the shrines one by one thanks to damage boost by those T1, of course you can use T3 to boost this, but your gold income will be minus, because as we all know it theocrat economy is so bad, so producing T3 for every task is like asking yourself to get defeated.

    Then as a splinter army, T1 infantry with mark of heretic almost beat any T2 one on one. Such a good trade off, if you fight a war of attrition, it’s the one that use T2 that will eventually lose the war. Add mystical city upgrade from dungeon, and your T1 can beat T2 one on one.

    Then come Rogue. Scroundel, a T1 irregular is still extremely useful against dreadnought.

    Then as already explained by JJ, producing T1 means you have greater number than those that producing T3, because not all cities will be able to 1 turn T3 whilst all cities will be able to 1 turn T1.

    Beside the battle/tactical advantage i explained above, the strategical advantage of T1 is numbers therefore it can cover a larger area in strategic map like JJ explained.

    Conclusion, is T1 not relevant in late game? No, the fact proves that it’s far from it, it’s actually the opposite, they are so relevant. Add the new system from the dlc and they can rule late game along with even T4.

    It just heavily depends on the class, some class use T1 more than other class. If you fail to see this, then you most probably only play with classes who doesn’t depend their lives on T1. (e.g: warlord, dreadnought and to lesser extend sorcerer)

    T1 is not a problem, the problem are bad T1 units that so easily are made obsolete by superior and still cheap enough T2 units.
    Elven infantry, who builds them over Elven archer or berserker/ crusader.

    Umm sir, archer is T1.

    Theocrat will still build T1 infantry even at late game.

    #156697

    Sounds to me that the main gripe is racial infantry then?

    I heard Elves get mentioned, but is that because the Elven swordsman is bad persé or is it because the rest of the Elven line-up is really rather good?

    Fwiw, I don’t think that is an issue of t1 being relevant, but more a case of where a unit fits in within it’s racial matrix. Also, I don’t think every race should be good at everything.

    #156700

    UltraDD
    Member

    Ye the elven swordsman isn’t that bad just gets out shadowed by his peers. He is still very useful and cost effective to hold units off walls\gates. And especially synergizes because his race has archers who deal nuke amounts of damage :|. And if you have a spell like star blades their damage output is suddenly scary even to a t4. (Reminds me of halfling adventurers. So good at killing archon :P).

    #156721

    Althea
    Member

    Sounds to me that the main gripe is racial infantry then?

    More or less yes.

    Those that say all T1 (archer, pikemen, infantry) are useless at late game, i’m sure they just played classes who don’t really depend on T1 in late game. For some classes, pikemen and archer which are both T1 are still useful even at super late game.

    But i think T1 infantry is only useful at late game in the hand of theocrat. With templar knight training, granting it devout which enable T1 infantry to go toe to toe with T2 and won if supported with mark of heretic. With holy war, it beat even most T3 in the game, add armageddon, and every T3 is going to be scared of theocrat T1 infantry.

    However, even some poster here find T1 infantry useful for classes other than theocrat.

    So i guess the final consensus based on the majority of posters here is T1 are still relevant at late game. Perhaps slightly less relevant for T1 infantry for all classes (only theocrat T1 infantry are so good compared to other class).

    Which is good imo, because if a type of unit is equally good in the hand of all classes, where’s the diversity of the game that we all want.

    Therefore, like JJ said, i think the balance is fine. But unlike JJ, i happily welcome the racial governance system.

    #156730

    I thought the issue was with Infantry, not Pikemen.

    Imho, the pikemen are pretty sweet.

    Indeed seems the biggest issue is that once you have Warhalls, you can have Cavalry or Pikes, obsoleting swordsmen, especially as you usually get Trebuchets by then, or rams in a pinch, so walls can be bypassed that way.

    Got to say this isn’t the issue with Frostling Raiders and Royal Guards, but my impression is that is the problem with the default races.

    Comment?

    How do you feel about the Nightwatch/Farmer pairing, for example?

    Charger/Crusher.

    etc.

    #156735

    Althea
    Member

    I think infantry/pikemen is quite a bad pairing, i maybe wrong though.

    Most of the time, i use pikemen when i play defensively in battle, they are a good pairing with long range unit (archer or support).

    So it depends on army composition if i decide to mix units in a stack/army.

    Somehow if my stack is more melee oriented, that’s when infantry start to shine. However i never try to heavily use T1 infantry in my games so far, unless i’m theocrat, its T1 infantry is so wonderful if used right.

    To sum it up, i rarely pair pikemen with infantry except when it’s the starting army i get at the start of the game, for me it’s more dependant on which class i use, well some specific class seems destined to use infantry more than the other.

    Anyway, about T1 pikemen vs T1 infantry usage, i think pikemen before the update that give them pike square is worth more or less as infantry, what make them very useful now is that update, pikemen more or less is in a fine balance right now.

    #156744

    Gloweye
    Member

    IMO, infantry gets overshadowed by pikes pretty soon. Apart from that, the balance is fine. The only thing infantry in general have on pikes is wall climbing. First strike alone is enough to offset overwhelm/shielded, except when the battle becomes a flankfest.

    #156745

    To sum it up, i rarely pair pikemen with infantry except when it’s the starting army i get at the start of the game, for me it’s more dependant on which class i use, well some specific class seems destined to use infantry more than the other.

    yeah, most of the tier 1 default infantry (note that some of these things will be obsoleted. hard. in the new system) become garrison only troops. Dwarf warlords and theocrats can use axmen later on, as they are just so very tough and arrow resistant.

    Shielded infantry last the longest, of course, but even these become less relatively valuable. You get shielded cavalry with knights, or you have fast archers which infantry can’t catch on the strategic map, and which can outmaneuver them in tactical combat (sprinting horse archers have a particularly easy way of doing that).

    Pillar of the stylites, a quite common site, also lets pike-men have equal ranged resistance as shielded infantry. Especially since late game enemies almost always fly/are mounted or cavalry, there is little reason not to pick pikes over infantry.

    Of course, sometimes you don’t have pillar of the stylites, and sometimes there are non polearm vulnerable enemies, so it is still useful to keep a few around (except for dwarf axemen and theocrats/warlords).

    And I don’t think that is really a problem: the reason that pikes come from the warhall is that they are designed to last into the late game.

    #156768

    ninninnin
    Member

    t1 dont seem to really fall off until aoe damage gets out of hand. t1 archers are the best ranged damage youll get for the price and t1s viability seems to revolve around this, pikemen to discourage some of the most mobile units in the game from destroying the archers but infantry does seem to fall off, having the degrading duty of wall climbing distraction

    if youre talking about dwarf t1 falling off i guess id agree and i think it ties into their archers the crossbowmen below average dps. they could stand to have armor piercing shots i think.

    i sometimes see them compared to musketeers in their dps but thats totally unflattering as musketeers do not have impressive dps either. frontloaded damage is the entire point of musketeers. if they had to do their damage over 2 turns you would cry.

    on the subject of dorfs, you know that defensive strike dwarves are gonna get? anyone know if they go into guard mode before or after their attack? i think its going to do a lot to help dwarven t1

    #156773

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Contrary to what Althea says I welcome racial governance, it’s just that I had a pang of worry, it might all be for T1 and T2.
    No, I would welcome a subtle Infantry incentive, the reason of which is actually the fact that I’m not completely satisfied with what the Mystic Upgrades do for Infantry units. Or Arena.

    Stems from the Infantry concept. What IS an Infantry actually? Answer: bread and butter of warfare. A know-it-all unit.

    So wou would make T1 Infantry pretty interesting if you would give them “more” with each medal: Shield works better, wall climbing makes less vulnerable or not vulnerable at all, Shield works against First Strike…
    You know, the key to a good infantry is that it actually can fulfil EVERY role, but none as good as a specialist (which would be the Archer – Cav – Pike triangle).
    The Irregular has the one-shot ability that would make Infantry better – meaning, Infantry would be better, if it was an Irregular with shield, a better defense and wall climbing (Irregulars being lighter, cheaper and more maneuverable).

    Right?

    #156777

    Gloweye
    Member

    anyone know if they go into guard mode before or after their attack

    After, and it’s gonna be pretty useful. However, a Pikeman’s First Strike will still hit before they enter guard mode, and only the second strike will be against the bonus Def/Res.

    @Jolly Joker

    Personally, I’ve always seen the Irregular as an archer/infantry crossbreed. infantry is just basic rank-and-file troops, cavalry for fast strike forces, pikes vs cav, archers for behind the infantry/pikes. Wall Climbing sure puts Infantry in a nice spot though.

    #156779

    Brandon_354
    Member

    What IS an Infantry actually? Answer: bread and butter of warfare. A know-it-all unit.

    So wou would make T1 Infantry pretty interesting if you would give them “more” with each medal: Shield works better, wall climbing makes less vulnerable or not vulnerable at all, Shield works against First Strike…<br>
    You know, the key to a good infantry is that it actually can fulfil EVERY role, but none as good as a specialist (which would be the Archer – Cav – Pike triangle).<br>
    The Irregular has the one-shot ability that would make Infantry better – meaning, Infantry would be better, if it was an Irregular with shield, a better defense and wall climbing (Irregulars being lighter, cheaper and more maneuverable).

    Right?

    Actually infantry are just soldiers on foot and they can be specialists but were more often cannon fodder than “know-it-all units”. Technically pikemen, and debatably archers, are also infantry.

    I still stand by production spill over as a good way to balance t1. even ifr they are massed produced they still fall prey to AoE and chain attacks.

    #156785

    Gloweye
    Member

    I still stand by production spill over as a good way to balance t1. even ifr they are massed produced they still fall prey to AoE and chain attacks.

    I’d like overflow as well, but I don’t think it’d do that much for the T1’s.

    However, we know were not gonna get it anytime soon.

    #156786

    Teehon
    Member

    So wou would make T1 Infantry pretty interesting if you would give them “more” with each medal: Shield works better, wall climbing makes less vulnerable or not vulnerable at all, Shield works against First Strike…
    You know, the key to a good infantry is that it actually can fulfil EVERY role, but none as good as a specialist (which would be the Archer – Cav – Pike triangle).
    The Irregular has the one-shot ability that would make Infantry better – meaning, Infantry would be better, if it was an Irregular with shield, a better defense and wall climbing (Irregulars being lighter, cheaper and more maneuverable).

    Right?

    Sorry for bringing it up again, but the Evolution Mod 2.0 featured rankable passive abilites, such as Shield III, or PoleArm IV. So all sword-and-board units were getting better Passives with the medals as well.
    (And dwarves were getting better Mountainering as well)
    All in all, that system worked pretty good.

    Stems from the Infantry concept. What IS an Infantry actually? Answer: bread and butter of warfare. A know-it-all unit.

    So wou would make T1 Infantry pretty interesting if you would give them “more” with each medal: Shield works better, wall climbing makes less vulnerable or not vulnerable at all, Shield works against First Strike…
    You know, the key to a good infantry is that it actually can fulfil EVERY role, but none as good as a specialist (which would be the Archer – Cav – Pike triangle).
    The Irregular has the one-shot ability that would make Infantry better – meaning, Infantry would be better, if it was an Irregular with shield, a better defense and wall climbing (Irregulars being lighter, cheaper and more maneuverable).

    Right?

    Curious. After being pretty anti to all the initiatives in the topic yoú basically reflect my thoughts while making this very topic.
    Infantry always was the main force of the army, the very fundament of it. Well, obviously, you can’t make an army of dragons in RL, but still..
    I loved the Age of Mythology for it’s gameplay in this aspect and how terrifying the monsters were there, compared to your basic troops. Made for some epic warfare.

    #156820

    caxap
    Member

    Have to agree, that T1 racial infantry becomes obsolete quite fast, because it dies too quickly against higher tiers and archers.

    MAYBE they should make them more defended.

    I think that racial infantry should get +20% phys protection at rank 2.
    It means, that with arena and racial T3 building, infantry will receive 20% less damage from most enemies – it’ll make infantry more durable against archers and creates new niche for them:

    – infantry – durable meatshield
    – archers – glass cannon shooters
    – pikeman – anti air-cavarly units, but vulnerable to archers
    – irregulars – mobile “universal” troops.

    Projectile resistance is good option too (for example, give it to infantry by arena) – it’ll make infantry more “tankier” against archers.

    #156922

    Bouh
    Member

    Indeed seems the biggest issue is that once you have Warhalls, you can have Cavalry or Pikes, obsoleting swordsmen, especially as you usually get Trebuchets by then, or rams in a pinch, so walls can be bypassed that way.

    The thing with T1 infantry is that you can’t make them too strong or they will obsolete everything else. T1 infantry is already excellent to shield archers from everything without a warhall. Shield infantry is the best to hold gates in towns for their price. Cavalry is too expensive to garison cities, because it cost too much upkeep and without the shield is not a lot more resilient than infantry.

    Shock infantry is less suitable, yet it serves this role well because is cheap enough. What it can do excellentely though is a cheap placeholder for powerful enchantments. Unstable transformation for example makes them great, but other spells like mighty meak or shadow form tranform a T1 infantry into a killing or unkillable machines, and in this case the ennemy will almost never expect it.

    The whole point of infantry is to be cheap so you can build them everywhere for almost nothing. Pikemen are often better in late game, but require a warhall. Sometimes you don’t have the time or money to build a warhall. There function is to add bodies to your army when you don’t have time or money to build something else. And they serve this purpose very well.

    Because if you could prefer them to a more expensive unit for a given task, that would mean the more expensive unit is useless, because why would you invest a lot more money into something when something much cheaper can do it as well ?

    Low tier units are useful if your economy and time are constrained. If it’s not the case, of course it’s useless because you removed the price from the power equation. But AoW never meant to be played with “infinite” resources.

    #156932

    Astraflame
    Member

    Pikes with stylites match shielded infantry in ranged defens, not really vulnerable to archers.
    T1 Infantry could do with improved toughness upprade come the mid game.

    Veteran infantry could be granted +2 def insteaf of 1.
    Warhall +5 hp for T1 infantry only.
    Racial T3 building +2 ranks T1 infantry.

    Suddenly they are respectable, still inferior to the T 2 infantry but less pathetic.

    #157021

    Because if you could prefer them to a more expensive unit for a given task, that would mean the more expensive unit is useless, because why would you invest a lot more money into something when something much cheaper can do it as well ?

    Low tier units are useful if your economy and time are constrained. If it’s not the case, of course it’s useless because you removed the price from the power equation. But AoW never meant to be played with “infinite” resources.

    An important point: we don’t want high tier units to become “noob traps” that are good on paper, but inefficient at accomplishing game tasks.

    We should also note that aow ii did have one feature that made infantry more important: the teleportation system. That made strategic speed less important in the late game, as you could wisk your army right to the front line, or even a newly conquered city.

    So even when there are various changes, most infantry will fall to the wayside purely because of strategic speed.

    As the mighty Tigrans have been revealed, you can see part of how lower tier troops, including infantry, have become more useful.

Viewing 30 posts - 61 through 90 (of 102 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.